Go to page

It is a pretty fascinating read and I agree with some of what he wrote while disagreeing with other things that he wrote. I would like to write a more in-depth review of what he wrote later, but first, I was wondering if anyone else has taken a look at this article and, if so, what your thoughts about this article are.

Just read it. Very insightful-- have often pointed out on this site that "anti-colonialism" is like a religion for left-wingers and Nationalists from former colonies and protectorates and many of the shibboleths arise from either pig-ignorance or a massive chip on the shoulder. I'm not sure that charter cities would get much much support in Africa though---too much like Apartheid, although the Chinese in Africa seem to get away with their segregated "compound" living. Generally "Special Economic Zones" like those that kicked China into gear have had a mixed success--they smack more of tax-dodging havens with an attached labour camp.

Just read it. Very insightful-- have often pointed out on this site that "anti-colonialism" is like a religion for left-wingers and Nationalists from former colonies and protectorates and many of the shibboleths arise from either pig-ignorance or a massive chip on the shoulder. I'm not sure that charter cities would get much much support in Africa though---too much like Apartheid, although the Chinese in Africa seem to get away with their segregated "compound" living. Generally "Special Economic Zones" like those that kicked China into gear have had a mixed success--they smack more of tax-dodging havens with an attached labour camp.

I fear that charter cities might not be successful for another reason. Specifically, I fear that if the newcomers and their descendants are going to be given equal voting rights there, then they might be inclined to elect corrupt politicians just like they could in the home country. Of course, denying them the suffrage would obviously be wrong, but I am simply pointing out that life has its trade-offs.

I don't know if you've ever read Garett Jones's work, but among other things, he talks about how institutions in various countries are the result of the voters in these countries. In other words, if you get bad voters, you get bad institutions, and vice versa.

"I’d have one critique of your claim, one that is common to many supporters of freer low-skill immigration.

You claim that institutions are important, something I agree with. And you claim that low IQ populations tend to have bad institutions, partly because of the low IQ population, again something I agree with.

But from there you conclude that low-IQ immigrants should be allowed to come to countries with good institutions. That might be reasonable as a moral case but I’m no expert on morality so I’ll leave that to others.

I would emphasize a different conclusion: That the low-IQ immigrants will tend to worsen the institutions of the higher-IQ countries they move to. Low IQ immigrants will, to some degree, tend to make the country they move to more like the country they came from.

Partly this will be due to MRV and Caplan/Miller reasons: low IQ groups vote for bad policies. Partly it’s because they will tend to elect individuals from their constituencies, which will, on average, tend to lower the average IQ of the legislature. And partly it’s because the bureaucracy will tend to hire individuals from low-skill groups, which will lower government quality.

For these and other reasons, new low IQ citizens impose a tax on the nation’s institutions, and this institutional cost should be counted in a candid cost-benefit analysis.

*Shorter version: Good institutions are rare treasures, and institutions are endogenous with respect to (among other things) citizen IQ. *"

Personally, I think that Garett is spot-on in regards to this. However, I would also like to point out that good institutions likely need a high level of human capital (as in, a population with a high average IQ) in order to achieve First World-level prosperity. Sure, Europeans could create great institutions in Sub-Saharan Africa if they so desired, but unless Sub-Saharan Africa's average IQ rises to First World levels (and everyone should strongly hope that it does because everyone will be much better off), Sub-Saharan Africa would be unlikely to achieve First World-level prosperity even with good institutions--unless perhaps it has a significant resource windfall and/or tourism windfall.

The only major objection I have with what he said was about Cambodia. It was the authoritarian Vietnamese intervention , not the Chinese back Ed Khmer Rouge , that benefited Cambodia. Khmer Rouge was uniformly disastrous for Cambodia, resulting in massive unnecessary loss of civilian lives .

The only major objection I have with what he said was about Cambodia. It was the authoritarian Vietnamese intervention , not the Chinese back Ed Khmer Rouge , that benefited Cambodia. Khmer Rouge was uniformly disastrous for Cambodia, resulting in massive unnecessary loss of civilian lives .

I can't believe people compare actual colonialism with what China is doing now in Africa. African countries agreed to do business with China, that's their choice. Whether they think the deal is good or not is their choice to make, not the choice of former colonizers who insist that African choices aren't good, that Africans should listen to their former colonizers on who to do business with. If other countries don't like it then feel free to offer African countries a better deal, Africans aren't idiots. Africans don't need former colonizers telling them whether they can pay back their debts, they can do the accounting for themselves. It's their bank, it's their money, it's their country. If it's such a bad deal then former colonizers could simply offer them a better deal, if they truly cared. It's demeaning treating them like children rather than adults. On the other hand these people don't have a choice:

Herero Genocide:

Now when China offers African countries a deal, the Africans have the option to reject the deal. After which the deal either falls apart, or China offers to renegotiate like what it did with Malaysia. They didn't start a coup and put a more preferable government in power, they didn't invade with guns blazing, they didn't sell them disease ridden blankets, they didn't bomb their cities until they submitted. See the difference?

Now do these African leaders have a gun pointed to their heads when they said they wanted to do business with China?:

Now let's look at what British Prime Minister Churchhill viewed the locals who are supposed to be under his protection:

I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.
-Churchill addressing the Peel Commission (1937) on why Britain is justified in deciding the fate of Palestine

I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes
-Churchill on how Britain should deal with the Iraqi revolution against British rule in 1920

I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.
-Entry dated to September 1942 on a conversation held with Churchill in Leo Amery : Diaries.

I hope it would be bitter and bloody!
-Churchill, upon hearing news of conflict between the Muslim League and Indian Congress, July 1940

If food is scarce, why isn't Gandhi dead yet?
-Churchill's witty retort to British Secretary of State for India Leo Amery's telegram for food stock to relieve the famine of Bengal in 1943 (4 million peopled starved to death.)

And here's the kicker:Relief would do no good, Indians breed like rabbits and will outstrip any available food supply
-Leo Amery records Churchill's stance on why famine relief was refused to India, 1944, when British mouths were filling up on imported Indian grain

It is a pretty fascinating read and I agree with some of what he wrote while disagreeing with other things that he wrote. I would like to write a more in-depth review of what he wrote later, but first, I was wondering if anyone else has taken a look at this article and, if so, what your thoughts about this article are.

I don't know if you've ever read Garett Jones's work, but among other things, he talks about how institutions in various countries are the result of the voters in these countries. In other words, if you get bad voters, you get bad institutions, and vice versa.

Historum

Founded in 2006, Historum is a history forum dedicated to history discussions and historical events. Our community welcomes everyone from around the world to discuss world history, historical periods, and themes in history - military history, archaeology, arts and culture, and history in books and movies.